EVE Search - Tux wants to break the blob!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tux wants to break the blob!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
inSpirAcy Caldari The Solopwnmobiles	Posted - 2006.09.03 00:06:00 - [1] And in true EVE forum fashion of taking a comment completely out of context, here's my favourite quote: Originally by: Tuxford We're looking into ways to break up the blobs. Potent AoE weapons would definitly encourage people not to stay to close to each other. Boosting smartbombs FTW! Go read the dev blog, it doesn't quite imply that.
Verus Potestas Caldari Fiat Mort	Posted - 2006.09.03 00:14:00 - [2] Edited by: Verus Potestas on 03/09/2006 00:15:08 Sing along now... "As I jump through the stargate to Amamake I take a look at my slots, and realise there's smartbombs there cos I've been blasting and laughing so long that even my mama's capsule has been done but I never meant to pop a noob, who didn't deserve it but letting someone go? You know, that's unheard of You better watch how you're jumping, and where you're warping Or you and your corpies might be in new clones I really hate to stab, but I gotta, see As I warp I see my name, in the local smack I'm the kinda pie the little swigglets wanna be like At a gate, in a phoon, bombing bears to get their loot Been spending most our lives, bombing in a camper's paradise..." Signature removed - please email to find out why (include a link to the original image) - Jacques([email protected])
Azerrad	Posted - 2006.09.03 00:14:00 - [3] Smartbombs with any meaningful range would most likely be overpowered. I'd rather not see CCP attempt to make smartbombs into a full fledged weapon class since it would probably destroy close range combat. signature removed - please email us if you want to find out why (include the URL to it) - Jacques([email protected])
Arkanor Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:15:00 - [4] Originally by: inSpirAcy smartbombs FTW! Smartbombs suck (out of context quote ftw!) If we had like bomber class ships that would be interesting, perhaps a role to give to the Stealth Bomber. Originally by: Ghosthowl WoW = hardcore paladins smashin dat face. Originally by: HippoKing I just cried, you know that?
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:19:00 - [5] I want smartbomb launchers!
Phrixus Zephyr Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:23:00 - [6] Originally by: Audri Fisher I want smartbomb launchers! Fires a smartbomb module out of his 425mm "ooow... that really hurt... i mean who fires a smartbomb.. honestly"
Laekon Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:30:00 - [7] Why not t2 torps with ae dmg? Not really balanced by race though.
ThunderGodThor KIA Corp	Posted - 2006.09.03 01:36:00 - [8] Originally by: Laekon Why not t2 torps with ae dmg? Not really balanced by race though. They did have torps that did AE.. the result was you killing someone and there pod at the same time. That and you'd kill friendlys. Also image using them say in jita thats why it was removed. One of the first missle nerfs i think tho all this is before my time and precastor.
Iota Belisarius Procurare Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2006.09.03 02:48:00 - [9] Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr Originally by: Audri Fisher I want smartbomb launchers! Fires a smartbomb module out of his 425mm "ooow... that really hurt... i mean who fires a smartbomb.. honestly" Short funnily named asian men? --------------------- Your sig is inappropriate. Please read the forum rules before reposting. -Tirg Sig jacked and nerfed in one day, just my luck.
Arcterran Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.03 02:58:00 - [10] 'Potent AoE' is not the answer. Do you really think that will stop a corp/alliance from bringing everything they have to a fight? "Oh no, the enemy has AoE weapons, let's just bring 5 people." AoE would be another easy way to kill frigs/intys/cruisers, as if T2 ammo doesn't make it easy enough as is. If CCP thinks this is the right direction, then they need to turn the map right side up, because they are going backwards.

Scorpio Dantes	Posted - 2006.09.03 04:44:00 - [11] How bout an energy-destabalizing bubble launcher? Sure you can stay in your blob, if you want the whole fleet to have empty caps! Ignore my suggestion if it's too nooby - i have absolutely no experience with blobs.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.03 06:07:00 - [12] Originally by: Arcterran 'Potent AoE' is not the answer. Do you really think that will stop a corp/alliance from bringing everything they have to a fight? "Oh no, the enemy has AoE weapons, let's just bring 5 people." AoE would be another easy way to kill frigs/intys/cruisers, as if T2 ammo doesn't make it easy enough as is. If CCP thinks this is the right direction, then they need to turn the map right side up, because they are going backwards. I agree... AOE weapons is not the answer to blobbing I think. Then again, its easy to critizise. I think this thread should be about alternative ways to decrease blobbing instead... not that I can think of any myself. :p --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
BoinKlasik Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.09.03 06:17:00 - [13] give me ender's weapon, the more there are, the more powerful it is. doh, I broke my edited sig :/ cries this signature was lacking pink, I'll provide it for you. There. Looks better doesn't it? -Eris Fixed it for you. Oh, btw, yarr! ~kieron Didn't I tell you? The damsel moved in with me, we're having a great time. - Wrangler The damsel may not be distressed any more, but how many times does the informant have to be silenced before he gets the message? - Cortes
Dopefish Amarr Quad and Fish	Posted - 2006.09.03 06:30:00 - [14] Tux wants to break up the longrange sniper blob, not the map blobs.
Hayabusa Fury Caldari Wu-Tang Financial Mordus Angels	Posted - 2006.09.03 06:33:00 - [15] For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. 200 man fleets have to coordinate much better and wing commanders become important. Adds more stragedy to fleet fights. Forces smaller gangs even if you want to show up with 200 ships. Adds more than one primary target. Seems to me that it would allow heavily tanked command ships a chance to stick around for a bit. Maybe also carriers and BS's. ---------------- "I can not recall the number of times my superior intellect has got me knee deep in ****!" --Harely Hayes
Anjor Minmatar VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.03 07:22:00 - [16] Quote: For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. Actually, thats not a bad idea, but coming from a programmer, that would be hell since you would have to custom edit all ship files to set a max target. Since even if you used a global variable you would still have to set it into all the ship submodules. But I do think this is a better answer to gank squads, capital ships, and the like being that you don't have insane blobs hitting 1 target. I do however see one problem with only 5. Lets say you have a group of 10, 4 tacklers, 6 dps. Well the tacklers are most likely going to lock first which means only 1 dps will lock, and the like, so its going to annoy some people lol. Then again setting a max lock might have people bring more things like logistic ships and or booster ships since it would be a bit more useful without having them called primary and dying so fast. __________________________________________________ Yes im Minmatar, but I'm a freed slave that has Amarrian blood!!!
Orvas Dren Gallente The Nest	Posted - 2006.09.03 07:51:00 - [17] Edited by: Orvas Dren on 03/09/2006 07:52:46 Slight problem with the max locks... As a FC, I would have my guys target 1 primary called out for their sqaudrons, I would put them in groups of five, then I would have my squadrons target each and every one of their teammates, and maybe even others in the fleet. Next thing you know the smaller fleets have only friendlies locking their gang-mates and the enemies can't get a lock at all... If the other fleet doesn't do the same, then its a massacre, if they do, its a stalemate.... Max locks won't work. EVE-Mail me for custom signature work. Price Negotiable
Ather Ialeas Amarr	Posted - 2006.09.03 08:05:00 - [18] Originally by: Azerrad Smartbombs with any meaningful range would most likely be overpowered. I'd rather not see CCP attempt to make smartbombs into a full fledged weapon class since it would probably destroy close range combat. Smartbombs are currently a make or break-type of weapon; you can't tank any ship with them after activating them so if you fail with your try, you can kiss your ass goodbye. DPS-wise smarts spit out about ~560dps with max skills so they're not that overpowered. All we need is a range bonus (15km to large ones maybe) and some sort of falloff (another 15km? Or should it be 5km optimal + 10km falloff?).
Hayabusa Fury Caldari Wu-Tang Financial Mordus Angels	Posted - 2006.09.03 08:19:00 - [19] Originally by: Orvas Dren Edited by: Orvas Dren on 03/09/2006 07:52:46 Slight problem with the max locks... As a FC, I would have my guys target 1 primary called out for their sqaudrons, I would put them in groups of five, then I would have my squadrons target each and every one of their teammates, and maybe even others in the fleet. Next thing you know the smaller fleets have only friendlies locking their gang-mates and the enemies can't get a lock at all... If the other fleet doesn't do the same, then its a massacre, if they do, its a stalemate.... Max locks won't work. Programming issues aside. CCP should be dedicated to fixing the blob problem and put in the programming time to do so. That said just have Corp, Alliance, and Gang locks not count towards the total lock number. Total lock number only from hostile/non-friendly ships. I dunno, I just hate the blob combat we have. it is boring and stupid. What ever the fix, I do not think modifying weapons is the way to go. ---------------- "I can not recall the number of times my superior intellect has got me knee deep in ****!" --Harely Hayes
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 09:11:00 - [20] Originally by: Hayabusa Fury For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. That's an awful idea. How do we hold down a Vagabond now? Of break capital ship's tank? And it of course pretty much obsoletes groups with more than 5-8 people. Before you say "u sux coz u blob", think of the poor T1 frig ganks. Focus fire is not that detrimental to the game that it must be abolished completely. ------ No ISK, no fun

Terraform Gallente	Posted - 2006.09.03 09:47:00 - [21] Bring back splash damage on torps and you'll see the blobs seperating!
twopointoh	Posted - 2006.09.03 10:24:00 - [22] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Originally by: Hayabusa Fury For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. That's an awful idea. How do we hold down a Vagabond now? Of break capital ship's tank? And it of course pretty much obsoletes groups with more than 5-8 people. Before you say "u sux coz u blob", think of the poor T1 frig ganks. Focus fire is not that detrimental to the game that it must be abolished completely. The only little problem is that current large-scale warfare is... boring as ****. Sure it might be interesting if you're commanding a fleet. But if you think that blobbing is fun, go do some solo PvP. Better yet, get a few buds together and do some small/med sized gang PvP. I guarentee that you'll have more fun than warping in and out of safespots, focusing fire, running away, or getting instapopped cause you got called. And the waiting around forever in safe spots? God that's boring. I'd rather be scanning sectors and spend twice the time looking for good targets. My 'vision' of a space fleet battle goes something like this... The defenders have a grid of battleships spread out over a large area, with the cruiser sized ships scattered amongst them, smaller frigate sized ships zipping around, keeping a close eye on the perimeter for warp-ins. The offense is splitting up into two or three groups, with battleships taking point and support ships behind. There's a simultaneous warp in and the defense grid is suddenly surrounded by three groups of battleships... the frigates move in first - being fastest - trying their best to lock down/jam the larger, or take out other frigate sized ships, dogfights going on left and right. The cruisers supplement the frigate's damage, maybe sending waves of drones at the incoming frigates who are looking to lock down their battleships. The battleships slow to a halt in front of each other, anywhere from one on one to three on one... slugging it out with heavy fire, smaller ships zipping in and out in between the two, fighting each other, possibly targeting crucial systems on an enemy battleship and attempting to disable them. The battle is won through strategic placement, maneuvering, formations and smaller strategic fights spread throughout the larger battle. The win is placed more upon the chain of command and the aptitude of the squadron leaders. I don't know, that sounds a lot more fun to me than somebody saying over Vent "Organize player names alphabetically. Start from the top (or bottom). Align for warpout upon arrival, fire until your target is dead, move to the next." Pop goes 3-4 BS, and warping away! Yay! I know that my idea of a fleet battle would be incredibly hard to implement. In fact, you'd probably have to rebalance so much that it would be an entirely new game... but hey, we can all dream. ;)
Hayabusa Fury Caldari Wu-Tang Financial Mordus Angels	Posted - 2006.09.03 10:27:00 - [23] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Originally by: Hayabusa Fury For ships only...make it so only 5 ships can lock the same target at a time. That's an awful idea. How do we hold down a Vagabond now? Of break capital ship's tank? And it of course pretty much obsoletes groups with more than 5-8 people. Before you say "u sux coz u blob", think of the poor T1 frig ganks. Focus fire is not that detrimental to the game that it must be abolished completely. 5 was just an arbitrary number. It can be 8, 10, 15. But there should be a limit. A Battleship should never be insta popped is my point. Limit the lock number to less than capital ships only. As for vagabond being overpowered, it is a different matter. This game is primed for evolving and dynamic fleet battles. But, it really comes up short. Blobbing is what we have and it is lame. It would not be 5-8 man gangs only it would just mean they all couldn't attck the same target. Now we have 40 ships shoot at the primary target and 40%-70% of the shots never hit the target as it is popped before the bullets even get there. It's why the Raven sucks in fleet battles. Slow moving torps/missles. It does not need to be abolished. Just made more dynamic, strategic, and actually fun. ---------------- "I can not recall the number of times my superior intellect has got me knee deep in ****!" --Harely Hayes
xaioguai Minmatar	Posted - 2006.09.03 11:19:00 - [24] Make game behave more like missile weapon firing at the target after missile launched, during the missile flight time, if the target is dead or warp away, the missile will still fly off toward the edge not doing any damage. Guns on the other hand, after shots are pressed, if target is not available, the shots will return to the owner and can be used on the next target. That is why missile users will need to distribute fire power or even stop launchers even before target is dead while turret users simply just smash F1-F8 on primary. Focus fire currently does not lose any firing opportunity if primary target is unavailable due to warp away or dead. and so why spread fire power. If 100 tempest pilots smashing F1-F6 on a shuttle as primary and a pod as secondary. only the first 4 shots will get registered on the server, pilots can use those shot not being register on the server on the pod. uber effeciency on firepower. Imho, if 100 tempests 600 artilleries firing at a shuttle, the shuttle should be dead by 600 large shells instead 4. hense that will make focus fire less flavorable due to waste of firing chance. and that way, fleet battle will be more like many small squads against small squads instead of 2 giant gatling guns firing at each other.
Kunming Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.03 11:34:00 - [25] Edited by: Kunming on 03/09/2006 11:36:28 Originally by: twopointoh ... My 'vision' of a space fleet battle goes something like this... The defenders have a grid of battleships spread out over a large area, with the cruiser sized ships scattered amongst them, smaller frigate sized ships zipping around, keeping a close eye on the perimeter for warp-ins. The offense is splitting up into two or three groups, with battleships taking point and support ships behind. There's a simultaneous warp in and the defense grid is suddenly surrounded by three groups of battleships... the frigates move in first - being fastest - trying their best to lock down/jam the larger, or take out other frigate sized ships, dogfights going on left and right. The cruisers supplement the frigate's damage, maybe sending waves of drones at the incoming frigates who are looking to lock down their battleships. The battleships slow to a halt in front of each other, anywhere from one on one to three on one... slugging it out with heavy fire, smaller ships zipping in and out in between the two, fighting each other, possibly targeting crucial systems on an enemy battleship and attempting to disable them. The battle is won through strategic placement, maneuvering, formations and smaller strategic fights spread throughout the larger battle. The win is placed more upon the chain of command and the aptitude of the squadron leaders. I don't know, that sounds a lot more fun to me than somebody saying over Vent "Organize player names alphabetically. Start from the top (or bottom). Align for warpout upon arrival, fire until your target is dead, move to the next." Pop goes 3-4 BS, and warping away! Yay! I know that my idea of a fleet battle would be incredibly hard to implement. In fact, you'd probably have to rebalance so much that it would be an entirely new game... but hey, we can all dream. ;) Well old style fleet battles were pretty much like that, non of this sniping blob bull****.. we would send in the frigs and fast ships first so the enemy targeting organisation would need to retarget once the big ships come in, support craft was important at this point and you would see small skirmishes left and right of the battlefield. This uber long range is killing alot of fun in EVE IMO. SOLUTION: Split tracking comps and sensor boosters in 2, one that boosts range but slightly nerfs tracking, the other that boosts tracking but slightly nerfs range; same for sensor boosters, one that boosts locking range but nerfs locking time, and vice versa.. This would make hit and run attacks with sniping boats impossible, snipers would need to stay on the battlefield longer and resulting in mixed fleets and task forces with each of its own mission. Fleets that want to utilize their firepower in a more efficient way would need to come closer, standart fleet battles would take place in mid ranges with some sniper groups moving in and out to score a clear kill, while cov ops and short range boats try to hit the sweetspot and mow through the enemy fleet. Will it solve focus fire and blobbing? not really, but at closer ranges you can utilize your firepower better and couple smaller groups with multiple targets are more efficient than a single blob with a single target, it will force the blob mentality to be more than just "warp in, primary, secondary, warp out". Unfortunately we dont have an advanced gang structure with wings and wing commanders.. You cant force ppl not to create blobs, but you can make it tactically less viable compared to a more organised fleet that covers all fields of the fight. Currently we only have 2 fields in a fleet battle: snipers and support.
Ginaz Veto.	Posted - 2006.09.03 12:15:00 - [26] a change to sensor boosters. - might lock faster - reduces lock range then change some other module like signal amplifier or whatever to boost locking range SLIGHTLY. Or just remove the i_can_lock_you_from_250km_pwn_ability from the game, i.e. no module increases locking range. Locking range would totally depend on long range targetting skill and so fights will be limited to a 80-130km area. That would be a start Video: 'Behind enemy lines' Queen of the Amazones
Wulfgard Minmatar The Older Gamers Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.03 13:48:00 - [27] Limiting the number of people locking the same target makes sense. Another option, would be related to RL Navy combat, the more ships shooting the same target = the worst your accuracy becomes. Introducing AOE is opening a door to a lot of problems imo.
Twilight Moon Minmatar eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.03 14:18:00 - [28] Originally by: inSpirAcy And in true EVE forum fashion of taking a comment completely out of context, here's my favourite quote: Originally by: Tuxford We're looking into ways to break up the blobs. Potent AoE weapons would definitly encourage people not to stay to close to each other. Boosting smartbombs FTW! Go read the dev blog, it doesn't quite imply that. Tux wants flamethrowers! Tux for President! ...on the other hand using a banana might be a viable alternative.
Death Kill Caldari direkte	Posted - 2006.09.03 14:23:00 - [29] Originally by: Ginaz a change to sensor boosters. - might lock faster - reduces lock range Yeah, and pods nor shuttles will have no escape from interceptors ever. Recruitment
Kunming Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.03 14:25:00 - [30] Originally by: Death Kill Originally by: Ginaz a change to sensor boosters. - might lock faster - reduces lock range Yeah, and pods nor shuttles will have no escape from interceptors ever. Buy halo implants

Ituralde Fate.	Posted - 2006.09.03 15:02:00 - [31] Edited by: Ituralde on 03/09/2006 15:08:09 Just increase the power of short range ships in EVE - make it worthwhile to build a short range fleet that can jump inside all the snipers that can't track worth crap when you are up close and personal - if they can really boost the short to medium range role and make it decently survivable (I.E more HP or somesuch)- and most importanly, not so laggy that its instadeath for anyone who tries it, and all the modules take way too long to activate in a fight such that trying to move to engage means not engaging 90% of the time - I might argue then you might start seeing shorter range BS jumping into long range fleets on a sling, and snipers being used more as support. That might even give Pulse Lasers a useful role, if they actually did damage that is... If you had a powerful short range role, that would force untanked snipers to spread out so the shorter range ships could not just chill in a single 10km blob and move relatively little to kill everything in it. I would say really overall the biggest thing stopping this is the lag issue that just makes the relatively uncomplicated task of operating a sniper BS the most viable simply because all you have to do is lock and shoot with relatively little maneuvering. Fear is the mind-killer.
Nidhoggur	Posted - 2006.09.03 15:31:00 - [32] Edited by: Nidhoggur on 03/09/2006 15:34:41 Originally by: Ginaz a change to sensor boosters. - might lock faster - reduces lock range then change some other module like signal amplifier or whatever to boost locking range SLIGHTLY. Or just remove the i_can_lock_you_from_250km_pwn_ability from the game, i.e. no module increases locking range. Locking range would totally depend on long range targetting skill and so fights will be limited to a 80-130km area. That would be a start The first bit is a really, really good idea, though we need to let long range exist a bit. As always in eve, people should be able to modify their ships how they want, but it can be made a little tougher for snipers to insta-gank... The 'Signal Amplifier' idea you mentioned, should work as an opposite... -Locks slower. -Increases lock range. Thoughts? This would kill gate-sniping completely. In fact, the more I think about this idea, the better it seems. If people wanted to beat the range of the turrets, they would lock so slowly that they would never catch anyone. There is still a place for snipers though, and they would be great for all sorts of things, if people were willing to specialise.
Elve Sorrow Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:30:00 - [33] I find it rather amusing that CCP introduce Tech2 Ammo specificly made for longrange, then want to reduce ship's effective range 6 months later.
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:31:00 - [34] First, twopointoh's vision of fleetbattle is excellent. I think most of us would like to participate in something like this. Originally by: Kunming Well old style fleet battles were pretty much like that, non of this sniping blob bull****.. we would send in the frigs and fast ships first so the enemy targeting organisation would need to retarget once the big ships come in, support craft was important at this point and you would see small skirmishes left and right of the battlefield. This uber long range is killing alot of fun in EVE IMO. The question is then - what changed that? I'd wager it was T2 long-range ammo (Tremor, Spike, Aurora), but it could also be more characters trained for battleships or wealthy enough population which can afford to bring battleships (and lose them) in each fight. So, veterans, around which time did fleet combat change? ------ No ISK, no fun
Mr Peanut The New Empire R i s e	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:46:00 - [35] How about a smartbomb launcher that is outlawed in alliance space?
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:52:00 - [36] Splash damage weapons... looks like they finally found a good use for T2 ammo... Unless the game is rebalanced rather heavily, then splash damage isn't realistic in any other implementation than dedicated ammo for it. There was a reason why it was removed from T1 missiles previously, and that reason was CONCORD. - Base insurance payout: 40% of ship base price Platinum cost: 33% of ship base price Platinum payout: 100% of ship base price Ship base prices can be found in CCP's Item Database.
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.09.03 16:53:00 - [37] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub First, twopointoh's vision of fleetbattle is excellent. I think most of us would like to participate in something like this. Originally by: Kunming Well old style fleet battles were pretty much like that, non of this sniping blob bull****.. we would send in the frigs and fast ships first so the enemy targeting organisation would need to retarget once the big ships come in, support craft was important at this point and you would see small skirmishes left and right of the battlefield. This uber long range is killing alot of fun in EVE IMO. The question is then - what changed that? I'd wager it was T2 long-range ammo (Tremor, Spike, Aurora), but it could also be more characters trained for battleships or wealthy enough population which can afford to bring battleships (and lose them) in each fight. So, veterans, around which time did fleet combat change? it changed cause the tight blob win most battles vs unorganised enemies From Dusk till Dawn
Cohkka LoneWolf Mining R i s e	Posted - 2006.09.03 17:01:00 - [38] Originally by: Death Kill Originally by: Ginaz a change to sensor boosters. - might lock faster - reduces lock range Yeah, and pods nor shuttles will have no escape from interceptors ever. There doesn't exist such thing as an "instalock" if you can't play the damn game it's your own fault. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5...
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 17:13:00 - [39] My 0.02 bits about snipe blobs: - Allow ships to warp to all ships (not just gang members) when they're beyond 150 km. Adjust the range if needed. - Make intredictor spheres immune to smartbombs. Could also do with some range increase. In last case, make those not usable in a gate or station grid, so they don't replace bubbles. This makes sniping more risky, but doesn't make it useless it. You can still squeeze a single BS before having to warp out, but wouldn't be able to stay longer for fear of getting jumped by short range fleet and/or a dictor. Pure sniping fleet will be useless, as it's hard to make much of an impact with a kill ratio of 1 BS every 2 or 3 minutes. Even more, such continous warp-in/warp-out tactic is insanely boring and prone to screwups. I think this would be motivation enough for FCs to make a strong close rang group with some sniper support to pick off important targets (ECM boats, possible FCs, hated characters ...). ------ No ISK, no fun
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.03 17:18:00 - [40] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub So, veterans, around which time did fleet combat change? it changed cause the tight blob win most battles vs unorganised enemies So it means tools to make tight blob effective were here all the time? Even before T2 ammo? At the time of Great Northern War? Back in the days of Curse Alliance? In effect, was the only thing lacking back then commanders who knew how to run a sniping blob? Any discussion about changing the sniping blob is useless if we don't know what started it. ------ No ISK, no fun

XGS Crimson	Posted - 2006.09.03 17:58:00 - [41] give us grenade launchers with a choice of splash and concentrated damages... and the thing with concord... u could just say boohoo my smartbombs are hitting cans... they havent banned them yet, missiles are a main weapon for a race and everyone elses secondary so u cant do splash on them. Grenade launchers= poor range, 2km splash radius.
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.09.03 18:03:00 - [42] Originally by: XGS Crimson give us grenade launchers with a choice of splash and concentrated damages... and the thing with concord... u could just say boohoo my smartbombs are hitting cans... they havent banned them yet, missiles are a main weapon for a race and everyone elses secondary so u cant do splash on them. Grenade launchers= poor range, 2km splash radius. Grenade launchers? WTF?
Ginaz Veto.	Posted - 2006.09.03 18:56:00 - [43] Originally by: Death Kill Originally by: Ginaz a change to sensor boosters. - might lock faster - reduces lock range Yeah, and pods nor shuttles will have no escape from interceptors ever. rofl you shoudn't pvp in shuttles and you shouldn't pvp if you can't afford a clone or if you have imps inside which you can'T afford to loose. I have to pay 16 mil each death myself and i'm fine with it. Removing the lock range bonus from sensor boosters (i.e. from the game appart from skill-wise lock range improve) would benefit to the whole game and sort the blob problem aswell. Everybody will warp at optimal or fleets will go back to close range battles like in history Video: 'Behind enemy lines' Queen of the Amazones
Taurgil Balanced Unity	Posted - 2006.09.03 18:58:00 - [44] Edited by: Taurgil on 03/09/2006 18:59:05 Launcher? Gallente Ships (e.g.) have (near) zero launcher hardpoints. If launcher, then give all the ships enough hardpoints or a specialized ship that have em, if not the idea is crap.
Bainie	Posted - 2006.09.03 19:04:00 - [45] Another suggestion is that of volatile components. Missiles explode when you shoot them at someone...why dont they blow up and cause damage when the ship containing them blows up to all those within a vicinity. I have long despised blobbing and gate ganking in general. If components upon the destruction of a ship would explode as well causing damage to those around them then that might add another interesting concept to combat. Sure you may lose your pod in the explosion....if you didnt bail out first and warp away, but you might get some of the bastards that got you depending on the cargo. This would I think add a new dimension to gate ganking and pvp. For one if you find an enemy blob 200 km away and can get a cov on tops of them, or pop one and then warp to the can...you can warp in a few badgers full of explosive material and deal a crushing blow to the blob as a whole, 3-4 may be enough to pop them all in their battleships. A freighter could have a huge area of destruction.....or a huge amount of damage...maybe a new tactic in pvp. If this were to be implemented it would also make sense to incorporate some sort of cargo concealment cloaking systems...or everyone can keep using cans in their cargo holds to conceal them from scanning. But wouldnt that make you feel warm all over if one badger 2 with the right cargo could kamikaze the ganksquad to hull or lower depending on the kits? If things in this game blow up...or are unstable it would only make sense that the components to make such...or at least certain components would also be explosive as well. I would love to see a blob of 50 BS desomated by 5 Indy Bombs and get eve back to pvp and not blob vs player.....or blob vs blob....as that isnt all that fun...and takes so much of skill out of the game. If you get into an incredibly damaging gang of 15+ BS sniping...you should be expecting the enemy to be countering that someway-by kamikaze indy bombs or something else...at the present there is not anything else in place for this, though this could be a solution. They would obviously have to place some limitations on it of course, empire, around stations etc...but ccp can sort that out. This was just an idea...flame away!
Ginaz Veto.	Posted - 2006.09.03 19:11:00 - [46] Originally by: Bainie Another suggestion is that of volatile components. Missiles explode when you shoot them at someone...why dont they blow up and cause damage when the ship containing them blows up to all those within a vicinity. Read the damn thread and you know why AoE effects were taken off torps. Video: 'Behind enemy lines' Queen of the Amazones
Ezra Gallente Calista Industries	Posted - 2006.09.03 19:12:00 - [47] Originally by: Wulfgard Limiting the number of people locking the same target makes sense. Another option, would be related to RL Navy combat, the more ships shooting the same target = the worst your accuracy becomes. Introducing AOE is opening a door to a lot of problems imo. I don't think introducing AoE is inherently going to cause problems, but CCP does have to be careful. For smartbombs - Honestly anything CCP does with these won't help. Due to the fact that they originate around you and will hit friendlies, I don't see them used often except as an occasional anti-drone measure or in solo ships. Yes, increasing their range and damage will cause people that use them to spread out, but I feel that the end result will not be people who use them spreading out, but even fewer people using them. I think CCP should think of some method to increase their desirability, but they would have to be very careful not to do it in a way that makes blobbing worse. Perhaps halving the DPS in exchange for not hurting friendlies? AoE could work very well for anti-blobbing if a new class of AoE weapon is added, one which is a ranged AoE. High fitting costs, high cap usage, low damage, but VERY large radius. Such that a bunch of them stacked would HURT if a fleet were bunched up but could easily be countered. It's a difficult task, I think AoE can be the solution, but its implementation must be carefully thought out. Not one of CCP's strong points unfortunately... ------------ Ezra Cornell pe0n, Calista Industries
Ginaz Veto.	Posted - 2006.09.03 19:15:00 - [48] Edited by: Ginaz on 03/09/2006 19:15:25 mini-doomsday device for dreads. would give a reason to put a dread into a fleetbattle Video: 'Behind enemy lines' Queen of the Amazones
Anjor Minmatar VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.03 21:26:00 - [49] lol, mini doomsday device. Oh you mean back in the day the old Hellfire Self Destruct SB. Oh god I miss that thing. 10000 kinetic dmg. If they did bring those back I would have so much fun popping expensive t2 fleets of cepters/dictors and frigs. Back on topic though. Yes I agree on the anti blobing, the AoE side I can see having issues, as it requires a new set of ships and weapons. So I see 3 points which are nice 1. Limit the max lock from enemy ships 2. Allow better catagorization of gangs. Primarly what comes to mind is subgangs within a gang, aka Wing, Cadre, Air Group (Space group in this case) then Fleet. This would also allow in things like Dread ops to place them all into a subgang, the tacklers in another, snipers in 1, etc. Much easier to direct. 3. Give more reasons why to drop out of sniper range into mid/short range combat. Longer lock times based on range, or changing of modules to either allow longer range/slower lock. All of which have nice input. The question is, how much is CCP willing to do for this subject at hand? __________________________________________________ Yes im Minmatar, but I'm a freed slave that has Amarrian blood!!!
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.03 22:57:00 - [50] ...then CCP need to start with T2 amo. //Maya

Hamatitio Caldari ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.03 23:23:00 - [51] a close range fleet will annihilate a larger long range fleet with scouts and dictors. People are just too afraid to do it. Watch Fate's video, it demonstrates this well :). --- I'm going through sigs fast these days.
Hamatitio Caldari ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.03 23:26:00 - [52] Linkage --- I'm going through sigs fast these days.
Rigsta Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2006.09.03 23:27:00 - [53] Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr Originally by: Audri Fisher I want smartbomb launchers! Fires a smartbomb module out of his 425mm "ooow... that really hurt... i mean who fires a smartbomb.. honestly" ROFL XD Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
Stuart Price Caldari Mercatoris Technologies	Posted - 2006.09.04 00:32:00 - [54] The more people that are locked onto a ship, the worse tracking becomes for all fire at that target due to signal interference of tens or hundreds of ships trying to get a signal. Imagine 100 people with really long sticks, if they all try to beat the same person, a lot of those sticks are gonna hit each other and deflect or be blocked entirely. Actually, now I'm just thinking about 100 people with really long sticks roaming the countryside and beating people up... "I got soul but I'm not a soldier"
Luc Boye Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.04 00:41:00 - [55] Bad thing would be to get podded due to splash damage... ---
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.04 00:50:00 - [56] Stuart Price, yea, imagine not being able to hurt ships properly in small group combat, with smaller ships activelt reducing your DPS, making anything less than a gank BS a negative. Because EVERY stat group discussed so far for that has done precisely that. Except global ECM. (Global ECM...a slowly ramping factor, it becomes only noticeable with 50+ ships and significant at 100+. It affects missile explosion radius and turret signature resoloution, making smallers ships considerably more survivable in fleet combat...) "Imagine 100 people with really long sticks, if they all try to beat the same person, a lot of those sticks are gonna hit each other and deflect or be blocked entirely." The first five people with the pikes will kill you. So there is no accurate comparison there. //Maya
whiteouter	Posted - 2006.09.04 01:02:00 - [57] Would giving bonuses to smaller gangs of ships.. help any? I ask casue I was thinking about 'homeworld'.. in it you had differing formations for your attack/defense (I recall formations.. like the claw, wall, delta etc..) so for example.. a set number of ships flying in a certain formaation would grant bonus.. ( ok it may step on command ship roles)... And , im not arguing that the ships visualy fly in formation... but say a inty fleet in certain formation can warp to a target ship ... ( gang leader selects formation) obviously there flaws.. but.. possibility? Its late .. just thinking out loud!!
N Solarz Caldari FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.04 04:00:00 - [58] i know orvas dren, and we might have talked about this, but the max number of locks is a good idea, just needs to be a little more complex, point values ie a megathron has lets say has a max lock on him of 20 points, and when he locks someone he takes up 5 point the points are scaleble by size frigs/inties/afs: 1 point dessies/ interdictors: 2 points crusiers/hacs/recons/supoport: 3 bc's/command ships: 4 bs: 5 therefore going back to our mega, he could have any number of combinations of ships locking him, but not a 40 man bs fleet with 20 tacklers also the amount of lockable points would vary by size with the new gang advances with gang heirarchy and such, the new voice chat, and such, this will make the game more tactical
Usotsuki	Posted - 2006.09.04 04:22:00 - [59] Thumbs up to making ships do damage when they explode. Thumbs down to max locks on a target. I'd like to see an overall decrease in optimal and increase in falloff. And also an overall speed boost to all ships. And make missiles travel faster but have less flight time. imo
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Black Reign Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.04 04:43:00 - [60] Originally by: twopointoh My 'vision' of a space fleet battle goes something like this... The defenders have a grid of battleships spread out over a large area, with the cruiser sized ships scattered amongst them, smaller frigate sized ships zipping around, keeping a close eye on the perimeter for warp-ins. snip I know that my idea of a fleet battle would be incredibly hard to implement. In fact, you'd probably have to rebalance so much that it would be an entirely new game... but hey, we can all dream. ;) I think it could be done (mostly) with the game we have right now. The main problem is that tools like Teamspeak don't adaqutely support ways to orginize groups of the size of modern Eve blob warefare. Rather, they were envisioned as support tools for team-based FPSes with groups the size of 5-15 players. Some of the more effective alliances are already working around such limitations, and the Eve integrated voice chat (whatever its possible flaws as a business model) may help, too. I also think that the first alliances to orginize themselves like that will eliminate traditional blobs twice their size. ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth

SAW 249	Posted - 2006.09.04 05:03:00 - [61] "Thumbs up to making ships do damage when they explode." This is the solution to the problem, add ship explosions similar to smartbombs to discourage tight blob fleet formations, and have the magnitude of the explosion be based on the class of the ship. Maybe make it so smaller ships like frigs do not have a explosion, only larger ships such as battleships primarily and possibly cruisers.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.09.04 07:04:00 - [62] The only problem is the tech2 ammo concept is totally borked for the long range stuff and a good bit of the short range stuff as well. The rokh will take the problem to a new level.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.09.04 07:08:00 - [63] Originally by: Max Hardcase The only problem is the tech2 ammo concept is totally borked for the long range stuff and a good bit of the short range stuff as well. The rokh will take the problem to a new level. Borked as in too good or horrible? Borked usually means horrible but I sense thats not what you mean. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
Fred 104 1st Royal Marines	Posted - 2006.09.04 07:18:00 - [64] Originally by: BoinKlasik give me ender's weapon, the more there are, the more powerful it is. Only if it can only be put on ravens.
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.04 08:13:00 - [65] there is only one solution to this problem: Introduce a more viable alternative. AoE weapons or smartbomb changes will not solve the problem, just change it a bit. We need better and more fleet/gang organisation options. This game should become a kind of strategy game with more increasing numbers. We lack ingame communication options (like short calls from counter strike and the like), finer gang organisation options (command hierarchy, wing/squadron objective designation. the fleet commander should play a strategic game with good gang overview and command controls. What we have now is a joke that works in up to 5-10 man gangs. All the tools are there, what we need are a few UI improvements (UI is one of the worst aspects of EVE). A fleet commander should be a FLEET COMMANDER, not a name calling monkey. Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
Kasak Black 133rd Ghost Wing R i s e	Posted - 2006.09.04 08:22:00 - [66] Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship. Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM... "Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh **, there goes another! *****s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships." If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet. Anyway, just my idea. Off topic I just found out Steve Irwin has died.. A sad day for us all
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.04 09:33:00 - [67] Make Carriers front line ships and make them be able to shoot energy destabilizors. Which is a bubble that can be shot at the enemy, on impact it becomes a 15km bubble draining x cap every x sec. Why give this ability to Carriers? Because we do not want everyone and their mom to use this.
Lucre STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.04 09:38:00 - [68] Originally by: Hayabusa Fury 5 was just an arbitrary number. It can be 8, 10, 15. But there should be a limit. A Battleship should never be insta popped is my point. I don't think locking limits are the way to go. But how about this? Any time a ship is hit, it becomes invulnerable for some (short) period thereafter - perhaps 0.25 seconds? [No, I don't know why in pseudo-science terms, but I'm sure it could be double-talked easily enough!] Probably also have the time depend on the size of ship (as it will essentially limit the dps that can be done so capitals should have a higher limit than BS and so forth). For single ship or small unit actions this won't make a lot of difference to dps - you'd lose a few hits but not many. But in mass actions it'd mean beyond a certain point you get diminishing returns from extra ships focussing fire - which is exactly the effect Tux is looking for!
Haruko Red Caldari Xenobytes Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2006.09.04 09:41:00 - [69] Edited by: Haruko Red on 04/09/2006 09:41:13 Originally by: Kasak Black Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship. Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM... "Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh **, there goes another! *****s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships." If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet. Ever heard about tacklers or close combat fits? You idea makes them pointless and we just will get more sniping. ________________________________________________ "I dont smoke." (C) William Blake
Xanfi	Posted - 2006.09.04 11:32:00 - [70] I have to say, everyone here who's said "tech 2 ammo needs a fix" seems to have hit the nail on the head. Tech 2 ammo created the problem and we can't just suggest brand new weapons and rebalance the entire of all pvp around the few t2 ammo types that were brought out. That would be insane. CCP needs to go back to t2 ammo and fix that, before they bring out even more stuff to try and nerf t2 ammos supreme rule over fleet battles. I mean imagine this, if the 3 main sniper ammos currently rule fleet combat then everyone will use t2 sniper ammo, because anything less will be suicide. But if a new module comes out that nulls the usefulness of t2 ammo.. then everyone will HAVE to use the new tactic that rules over the old tactic that automatically wins, and we'll end up with a brand new overused tactic. Increase T2 ammo's size so that you have to reload real often, (and give the t2 crystals an insanely low RoF), or something so that after the initial shots are fired it takes an age before the person can fire again. Or knock down thair damage bonus, only let them keep their range, make the damage a lot more tankable. Generally nerf t2 ammo (I hate saying nerf it makes me feel like a whiner :( )

Slan Traveller Sniggerdly	Posted - 2006.09.04 11:44:00 - [71] Suggestion: Combat performance of ships not under fire is normal, while ships under fire receive reduced DPS (being under pressure, targetting systems overloaded by impact). Historically crew morale and focus on ships not under fire has prevented admirals from utterly focussing their gunnery from the age of Nelson up to Jutland. Sic parvis magna
Wikka Sub-Genius inc	Posted - 2006.09.04 12:56:00 - [72] To fix the blob Don't touch weapons. Just add an exponential targeting time penalty for number of ships in grid in the same gang/aliance/corp. Result big camps - completely ineffective. Small raiders will get a little more oppertunity to get to their senses adjust for lag / maybee even grab a kill before being aniahlated. More mod/skill options for fleet command too. Dealing with problems with bigger guns would be more likely to just escalate the arms race resulting in ever heavyer ships being bought into camps.
Dred 'Morte Minmatar Sammael's Legion Arkhangelos Command	Posted - 2006.09.04 13:15:00 - [73] Just out of curiosity, what if you couldn't see the name of the pilot nor the nickname of the ship in the overview, and a blob vs blob would pretty much be a complete mess of random fire all over the place? Personally, I'd prefer random s*** all over the place insted of "organized warfare". This would pretty much force close range warfare (where you can scramble yourself) and because of the absence of focused fire, logistics (shield, energy and transfer arrays) could become useful and that would pretty much be the only organization allowed. Cool? Not Cool? PS: Obviously this idea cannot make it into the game, but, for the sake of curiosity, tell me what you think of it. Ya I know, crazy idea, but I like to dream. Signature made by Mr Floppykickners
Kanuo Ashkeron Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.04 14:00:00 - [74] Originally by: Wikka Just add an exponential targeting time penalty for number of ships in grid in the same gang/aliance/corp. Isn¦t this called lag?
St Dragon Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2006.09.04 14:05:00 - [75] Im glad that blobbing is getting looked at its the main reason i dont do fleet stuff anymore now. As for tech 2 ammo im sure it will still be considered long range ammo its just that long range in the future wont be in the triple figres anymore maybee something like 60km would be considered long range. ----------------------------------------------- "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." -- Jean Rostand
T'sar	Posted - 2006.09.04 14:19:00 - [76] Give Missiles and Torpedoes AOE effect
Vathar Elegance	Posted - 2006.09.04 14:19:00 - [77] Originally by: Kasak Black Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship. Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM... "Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh **, there goes another! ***s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships." If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet. Uh, two major problems here : tacklers and closerangers would HATE this, and this would lead to closrange fleet being impossible to use ... Gang warping and jumping would be a death trap ... You gang warp and end up inside a tight ball, a bunch of alphastrikers are waiting for ya, and a pair of deaths causes a chain of destruction that annihilates your fleet. Same thing happens when you jump, except that you're a bit more scattered. No, blowing ships would have too many side-effects. On another concern, yes, gang options, better UI, squadron fonctionnalities have to be improved to get pas this name-calling system we currently have now! _ Originally by:** Stamm Minmatar are kind of like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair firing an uzi
Daxes Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.09.04 14:21:00 - [78] blobbing doesnt need fixing, its not the problem. The problem here is Eve's lack of tactical options/features on a grand scale. We all want fleet fights and blobbs are simply just fleets. Its not "our" fault that there are no formations for gangs or any reason why we shouldnt use focus fire. Eve is in this part a very simplistic game. Instead of introducing some stupid AoE weapons which would be abused anyways (isnt that why missles lost their aoe damage?) think of ways to make big fleet battles more tactical. We need way to weaken focus fire. There are various ideas out there. I personaly would like a mix of stack penalty for ships shooting you and less range for weapons. There are also other good ideas out there but the problem of most is that they are either not possible or would take a long time. A change has to come in the next time and not in 2-3 years.
Hast Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.04 15:25:00 - [79] here's one for you. lets make it so that you cant lock a ship at all no?
Lisento Slaven Amarr The Drekla Consortium New Eve Order	Posted - 2006.09.04 15:36:00 - [80] Here's an idea - Make close up fighting more viable. Really that simple...to say! Hahaha! =D Close Up Fighting = Range within only a few targets. Long Range Fighting = Range within all targets! Why would you want a fleet that has to constantly maneuver when you can have a fleet that can hit everyone as soon as its deployed? --- Lisento Slaven wants to be a Space Whaler in EVE. Put in space whales!

Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.04 16:05:00 - [81] Originally by: Hast here's one for you. lets make it so that you cant lock a ship at all no? Ah, another ECM whiner. ------ No ISK, no fun
Shayla Sh'inlux Gallente	Posted - 2006.09.04 16:42:00 - [82] I suggest they start with fixing Deathstar PoS in such a way that you're not FORCED to blob up in groups of 150 just to get something done. Whatever changes are made, when a lot of people are going to get together, stuff is gonna go poof in seconds. It is that simple. No amount of non-gamebreaking changes is gonna change that. What we need changed is the incentive for people to get into huge groups. The NEED for 15 dreads to take on a PoS is one. Do you have any idea how many people it takes in your blob to have 15 available in a dread at a given time? Clearly not. Then the fact that you NEED 100 BS just to protect the damned things from 10 enemy BS which is an absolutely silly proposition in the first place. Then there's the sheer logistics involved in construction of motherships and outposts. Hundreds of Mark V runs need to be done just because a friggin' Freighter can only unload her cargo in a station. If 10% of your alliance's members are willing and able to fly a Mark V or Mammoth for a day or so and you need 50 to do it in a day you need 500 people to even consider doing it. And then we haven't counted the 200 BS that are needed on the gates to protect the operation (for 12-18 hours!) from 5 random Stababond pirates that are looking to blow up your 20bil investment, the people that mined all the minerals to raise the money and the guys planning and running the show. Blobbing will always be there. Power of numbers. Being in the blob is safe; outnumbering the other guy 2:1 makes you not lose your ship. However, blobbing is currently ENCOURAGED by game mechanics and looking for a fix is like curing the symptoms instead of the disease. What have Tech II ammo, PoS, Sovereignity, the Rokh with 10% range bonus, Stabs and ECM in common? Right, all of these 6 encourage longrange sniping and/or blobbing. Fix your game first, then start thinking about the blob.
Shaikar Amarr	Posted - 2006.09.04 17:12:00 - [83] Originally by: Kasak Black Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship. Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM... "Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh **, there goes another! *****s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships." If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet. Anyway, just my idea. I like the concept a lot, would go nice with the wrecks-replacing-cans thingy. It needs some work to fix the problems already pointed out sure, but still - I like the idea. Here's one change to fix most of the close range/tackling concerns - make the damage recieved a function of the ship's agility, and the damage dealt and AoE radius a function of the exploding ship's powergrid. Reason being it is assumed that smaller/faster/more maneuverable ships can avoid or "ride out" a big random explosion with assorted chunks of ship better than a huge battleship which probably won't have time to even start to react before it gets hit. Meanwhile, powergrid seems a reasonable figure to choose for the overall "explodyness" of a ship, a measure of how much energy there is floating around in the ships systems, ready to break out and make things go boom. The aimed for result being that if a frigate was close in, tackling the hypothetical Apocalypse, when the Apoc exploded, the frigate would take minimal damage at worst from the explosion. Meanwhile, if the Apocalypse destroyed the frigate instead, it would take full damage (assuming it was within the frigate's "death AE radius") but the actual numerical value of "full damage" would end up being almost negligible for a battleship anyway, as a frigate doesn't have that much to go boom in the first place. Sniping does need to be stopped though, or at least stopped being as silly as it seems to be atm.
Za Po Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.04 17:25:00 - [84] Originally by: Haruko Red Edited by: Haruko Red on 04/09/2006 09:41:13 Originally by: Kasak Black Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship. Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM... "Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh **, there goes another! ****s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships." If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet. Ever heard about tacklers or close combat fits? You idea makes them pointless and we just will get more sniping. The damage should scale - like missiles - so that small ships don't get wiped out if a BS happens to explode near them. Think the stereotypical small spaceship flying out of a massive explosion, relatively unhurt. You don't need to kill* people to get them to avoid excessively tight formations; some damage is enough. Especially since you want to avoid chain reactions, which would be just stupid. I also agree that some better facilities for fleet management would be very useful.
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Black Reign Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.04 17:33:00 - [85] Originally by: Xanfi Tech 2 ammo created the problem and we can't just suggest brand new weapons and rebalance the entire of all pvp around the few t2 ammo types that were brought out. That would be insane. Tech 2 ammo didn't create the problem. It increased an existing problem. It makes sniper fleets able to add another 50-100km and do more damage overall, but focus fire has been a problem ever since blobs existed. The solution is to make focus fire go away, preferably by providing tools to better orginize fleets. I'll take some improved AoE weapons, too (not just smart bombs, but ECM Burst as well, which everyone seems to be forgetting). ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth
Nials Corva Gallente Jumpgate Workers Local 1337	Posted - 2006.09.04 17:33:00 - [86] Every time a ship takes damage, reduce it's sig radius by 5% for the cycle time of the weapon (or just 3-5 seconds). Thus if 50 people hit at the same time, then it'll have the effect of 10 people hitting at the same time. Or the devs can use the same type of diminishing returns as they use in modules to scale the damage. Most modules asymptotically approach the effectiveness of 3x base as you add more. Scale it so that sig radius reduces such that the number of attackers asymptotically approaches 10 attackers. Use reasonable points such that 5 attackers is as effective as 4.5, 10 is 6, 20 is 8, etc. It can all be roleplayed off by explaining that the flak, debris, and ablative pieces of armor make resolution more difficult.
Karsus Maim	Posted - 2006.09.04 17:37:00 - [87] Maya is correct here, T2 ammo needs to be looked at. 100% bonus to range is just insane, T2 ammo should be more like 70% (just and idea) with a slight improvement in damage over say iron charges. Don't even get me started on the short range useless ammo (all types from rockets to conflag.), way way way too many penalties even for the high damage output (wouldn't even know where to go with this one).
Dryxonedes Sae TunDraGon	Posted - 2006.09.04 19:27:00 - [88] Odd sidethought. A large mass of electronic/fuel etc components exploding next to your ship (any class) SHOULD have some kind of effect IMO. Ok, so damage is out because of making close range combat not a viable thing. There must be something else you can "penalise" or "incurr" when you have a detonation just beside you? Maybe an X% chance you'll lose y # of target locks, temporary tracking/range penalty, something?(only thinking 1 of those 2, more seriously the tracking/range penalty) This is the way to me, allow sub-grouping then add some "spice" for ship detonations. The way i'd see that turning out, is you get 1 insta-pop, then the penalties have set in, long range starts to suffer... The time period would need to be set carefully so as not to also negate long range combat, but remove it from being the sole fleet operation. ** Where's the problem? It's called natural selection - The bottom of the **ing food chain. -Denis Leary
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Black Reign Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.04 20:44:00 - [89] Originally by: Dryxonedes Sae Odd sidethought. A large mass of electronic/fuel etc components exploding next to your ship (any class) SHOULD have some kind of effect IMO. For starters, I don't like making any game changes where the only argument is that "it's not realistic". In this specific case, it should be possible in a vacuum for an explosion to go off close to you without feeling it. Without a gas to push against, the explosion cannot produce a shock wave. Only the hot expanding gasses from the explosive fuel itself, plus any shrapnel, can produce damage. In any case, game changes should be made on the basis that the current mechanics don't work, not because they're unrealistic. For the purposes of breaking up blobs, I think there are better ways that are less problematic for small scale close-combat. ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth
Prez21 coracao ardente	Posted - 2006.09.04 21:23:00 - [90] The main problem is range. why would anyone want to fight close range when u can warp in at 200k and insta pop your chosen target. Now imagine guns such as rails and artys have a range of say 20-60k but have lower fitting requirments so you can also fit a tank, this making them still ok for close range engagements. Picture two 80 man fleets both close combat because long range weapons now only hit upto 60k, one fleet jumps into the other, FC cant call 1 primary because the fight is spread out ova 80k around the gate and blasterthrons and ac tempests and other close range BS arnt going to be able to hit the primary target if it isnt in range, so this would mean maybe breaking your gang into smaller groups each having there own wing commander leading them. The range changes might not suit alot of ppl but at the min the range at which ppl are fighting with is too high

Silver Fusion	Posted - 2006.09.05 09:43:00 - [91] the answer is easy, have a team of assasin devs in their jove ships......when the "blob detecor" is activated the all spawn next to the blob and WTFPWNBBQMOFO them all, not only would that add a really interesting and bizzare quirk to the game but the devs would have a barrel of laughs. and i'd be there with fraps running for your veiwing pleasure.
Nordvargr GoonWaffe GoonSwarm	Posted - 2006.09.05 10:59:00 - [92] Originally by: Prez21 The main problem is range. why would anyone want to fight close range when u can warp in at 200k and insta pop your chosen target. Now imagine guns such as rails and artys have a range of say 20-60k but have lower fitting requirments so you can also fit a tank, this making them still ok for close range engagements. Picture two 80 man fleets both close combat because long range weapons now only hit upto 60k, one fleet jumps into the other, FC cant call 1 primary because the fight is spread out ova 80k around the gate and blasterthrons and ac tempests and other close range BS arnt going to be able to hit the primary target if it isnt in range, so this would mean maybe breaking your gang into smaller groups each having there own wing commander leading them. The range changes might not suit alot of ppl but at the min the range at which ppl are fighting with is too high For some reason tux has it in his head that decreasing the size of the 'coconut of death' as he calls it will reduce the amount of concentrated fire. This is silly, people aren't going to get their cov-ops to find a warp-in at a range where they can't shoot, if range is cut in half people will engage closer and the concentrated fire will not change at all. If range is cut in half it will only hurt those of us that prefer close range battleships because a cov-ops cannot get a warp-in on top of a fleet that's 125km away as you can't warp to someone that isn't 150+ km from you.
Patch86	Posted - 2006.09.05 11:21:00 - [93] Someone said this before, and I liked it: AoE Energy Neutralzers. You know you want to........
XGS Crimson	Posted - 2006.09.05 11:34:00 - [94] Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: XGS Crimson give us grenade launchers with a choice of splash and concentrated damages... and the thing with concord... u could just say boohoo my smartbombs are hitting cans... they havent banned them yet, missiles are a main weapon for a race and everyone elses secondary so u cant do splash on them. Grenade launchers= poor range, 2km splash radius. Grenade launchers? WTF? use ur brain u tard a grenade launcher... u knnow the thing that fires grenades... dumbass
XGS Crimson	Posted - 2006.09.05 11:36:00 - [95] Edited by: XGS Crimson on 05/09/2006 11:41:59 u cant make ships explode because that screwes drones and blaster users.... Also i noticed people are slowly sliding towards snipers... sniping is sniping not blobing, blobing is multiple ships attacking one. They have already mentioned gang improvments such as a leadership system allowing maybe the people in a certain section of the gang rights to lock instantly without it showing up as a target. I think they may add a limiting target system as mentioned earyler in this thread.
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.05 11:38:00 - [96] Originally by: Prez21 The main problem is range. why would anyone want to fight close range when u can warp in at 200k and insta pop your chosen target. Now imagine guns such as rails and artys have a range of say 20-60k but have lower fitting requirments so you can also fit a tank, this making them still ok for close range engagements. Picture two 80 man fleets both close combat because long range weapons now only hit upto 60k, one fleet jumps into the other, FC cant call 1 primary because the fight is spread out ova 80k around the gate and blasterthrons and ac tempests and other close range BS arnt going to be able to hit the primary target if it isnt in range, so this would mean maybe breaking your gang into smaller groups each having there own wing commander leading them. The range changes might not suit alot of ppl but at the min the range at which ppl are fighting with is too high focus fire does not depend on range. sniper setups just avoid taking fire while giving out some. it will be the same even if the fleet battle happens with all blater throns. just the range will be different. the main problem is the warp in target. there is not much possibility for that today to organize a good fleet warp in ... Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
Amy Wang	Posted - 2006.09.05 11:39:00 - [97] This has to be well thought through to say the least. Well I dont like blobs of t2 snipers either, but if the change is done wrong it will mainly nerf short range combat groups and/or discourage gangs of smaller ships then BS which to a degree rely on superior numbers to compete or allow unintended exploits. The Proposals and their flaws: - reduced range will just mean focused fire on shorter ranges plus nerf short range groups unless you enable the warp to option at way less then 150km. - defense systems against long range fire like forefields: hard to implement, unproportional nerf to snipers, will cater to short range gank fleet and eliminate felexibility - weapons with ranged splash damage: unproportinal nerf to large groups of smaller ships and this weapons would be overpowered most likely - limited numbers of ships targeting another ship: highly exploitable, a bit less exploitable if you rule out targeting by gang/corp/alliance mates, but still possible to create invulnerable key ships using neutrals out of gang in your force - limited numbers of ships actually fireing at target ship: offensive modules without damage (like scram, ecm etc) should be left out to reduce exploiting chances as well as module use by corp/gang/alliance mates, exploit still possible using neutrals with low damage weapons this one seems to me like the best working and less flawed possibility
XGS Crimson	Posted - 2006.09.05 11:47:00 - [98] Snipers sacrafice their tank to use their weapons effectivly. They also have difficulty tracking small ships such as mwd frigs and interceptors. Everything has its weakness, may it be speed, defence, or attack you cant have it all and if you go to the extremes you can get one huge advantage and one huge weakness
Cod Ball Gallente Occassus Republica	Posted - 2006.09.05 12:41:00 - [99] TBH. Its not only the game that needs changing its also fleet commander attitudes. Damn near all FC's I know ALL want to snipe or go at long range. That makes the whole thing less fun and boringly simple. Whenever i lead a fleet im allways making sure everyone in the gang has short range setups and we allways go in right ontop of the enemy because it makes the whole thing more do or die and more intense. Ive won many fleet battles by doing that just because short range setups at 5-10km against even bigger numbers but with long range setups is a good fight and usually a nice win.
Tum II	Posted - 2006.09.05 12:50:00 - [100] anti-blob machine: stealth-bomber with device, who disable medium mobile warp disruptor at 30 sec. If blobbers have 5 mobile - anti blobbers need 5 stealts-bombers. Antistealth mashine - munin&eagle

Trev Kachanov Sha Kharn Corp Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.05 12:52:00 - [101] Please CCP don't make a Eve version of the combat medic
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.09.05 16:40:00 - [102] Originally by: Trev Kachanov Please CCP don't make a Eve version of the combat medic Ever heard of logistic cruiser? ------ No ISK, no fun
XGS Crimson	Posted - 2006.09.05 16:42:00 - [103] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Originally by: Trev Kachanov Please CCP don't make a Eve version of the combat medic Ever heard of logistic cruiser? they suck
Gabriel Karade Office linebackers Blood of the Innocents	Posted - 2006.09.05 17:03:00 - [104] Originally by: Slan Traveller Suggestion: Combat performance of ships not under fire is normal, while ships under fire receive reduced DPS (being under pressure, targetting systems overloaded by impact). Historically crew morale and focus on ships not under fire has prevented admirals from utterly focussing their gunnery from the age of Nelson up to Jutland. Exactly. Artificially nerfing focused fire is not what is needed, there has to be a sound reason to want to split fire, but at the same time there will be occasions where you would want to focus on one target e.g. capital-ship target shows up on the Battlefield. ---------- - Office Linebacker -
Minnow maught Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.09.05 17:07:00 - [105] AOE doesnt getrid of the blob .... it'll just make the blob use/rely on it more than the smaller blob. In reality a large gang should be better than a small one, co-ordintaed and combined firepower should win other wise it is not really very realistic. If aoe gets introduced, you'll still see the same size overall blobs, just perhaps setup in 4 gangs at 4 different locations to reduce the effects. That said ... gang skills could hold part of the key here ... cap the size of gangs? make it skill dependant? reduce the effect of gang skills based on gang size? Introduce a damage based skill that is very effective with small gangs but not effective with large gangs as the co-ordination is too much for the gang leader? perhaps even make it detrimental to damage output to be running a gang which is too large for the skill base? If you introduce a new weapon type / splash damage, it will be utilised just as much by the larger gang / blob and as they are bigger, they will still be more effective.
Zed Nash	Posted - 2006.09.05 23:46:00 - [106] Novel idea.......... add terrain. Instead of the emptiness of space surrounding you, have a nebula close-by that interferes with targetting range, a debris field which absorbs or nullifies a certain amount of damage, a gas cloud which effects visibility, be creative. Or add modules which act as terrain, a disruptor field which effects targeting range, a force field bubble which absorbs damage outside it's field of effect, again, be creative. Just an idea......... "Maya Rkell is my online stalker."
Aegis Osiris Gallente Demonic Retribution Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.09.06 02:44:00 - [107] This is a very complex problem, and no simple one-shot immunization is going to fix it. It will require an equally complex solution, with multiple parts acting together. First, let me just apologize up front to anyone that has mentioned all or part of this before. I'm not trying to steal ideas, just condense them. Second, any and all values suggested below are for the sole purpose of illustrating the concept. They would surely need to be tweaked by extensive testing. The Problem 1. Massed fire tactics in large scale battles = Deep Fried ships, relatively simple, brute force tactics, and generally less fun. 2. Long range sniper fleets are a related, though slightly seperate, problem. Never the less, sniper fleets are the most obvious and egregious application of massed fire tactics. The Proposal 1. Shockwave Effect: an exploding ship should impact objects nearby. While 'damage' is the obvious choice, it is too problematic and massively impacts close range ships. Instead, I suggest (as have others) a 'Shockwave Effect', with two parts. a) EM pulse: the explosion of a ship's powercore generates a pulse equivalent, in some ways, to an ECM burst with a 100% effectiveness within its area. Any ship within the blast instantly loses lock on any and all targets. No modules go offline until they run thru their natural activation cycle (ie. jammers, weapons, etc.; sensor and tracking boosters would remain active). b) Kinetic pulse: the detonation of the ship's powercore also throws out debris, from fast moving particles to chunks of hull. While it does no damage (could do minimal, unimportant really), it DOES nudge your ship. Not as much as a bump, but enough to throw off your alignment by a small degree. Example, your course changes to within a 15 degree cone of your present course. 2. Sensor booster change: split the bonus between two new modules: a Sensor Range Optimizer, and a Signature Analysis Processor. Long range targeting for sniper fleets is still viable, but lock time increases. 3. Tracking computer changes: add a small nerf to scan resolution when using a tracking computer or enhancer. Not large, and make the stacking nerf decrease the penalty for each additional unit (ex. 1 = 5% decrease to scan resolution, 2 = 7.5%, etc.). 4. Change gang warp: gang warp should no longer cause all ships to cluster tightly. Gang will warp in whatever spacing they were in when warp was initiated, from anywhere within the same grid. Using these would NOT stop massed fire tactics, but it would complicate the tactical picture, providing more options for smart commanders. Massed fire in closely spaced gangs would now come with some costs, and sniper fleets, while still viable, would find it harder to operate without solid support, both offensive and defensive. Please note, I have tried to avoid solutions that would place too much extra strain on the servers, as I fear the whole "limited locks per ship" solution might. I have also tried to take lag into account (ie. no modules get shut off that wouldnt be going off on their own anyway). Remember, the point is not that any one of these changes alone has a big impact, but that they would ALL have an effect in the same situations. I've given you a topic. Now discuss, as all this typing has made me all verklempt.... ________________________________________________ This thread does not exist
Glarion Garnier Solar Wind	Posted - 2006.09.06 03:36:00 - [108] HOW ABOUT The more ppl there is in a gang the less its members have targetting range. Thanks to overlapping targetting systems interfiering with each other. So the penalty would start after 5 ppl in the same gang or something like that.
Oscar Clay	Posted - 2006.09.06 04:07:00 - [109] Solution to overpowered sniping gangs: Sensor strength and resolution both scale inversely with range to target. A simple, completely realistic and easy to implement fix. At longer ranges it takes more time to lock on to a target, and your lock is weaker so it's easier to break with ECM.
Kelgen Thann SUBLIME L.L.C. Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2006.09.06 04:55:00 - [110] The skills that increase the gang size before a damage reduction occurs only works when you're in close proximity to the gang. ie. In the fight. These characters are critical to a large blob to function effeciently. The gang size skills could work by having one person have them and be in the same system as the fight. To prevent jumping from splitting the gang, have a count-down of say 2 mins. If the person that was safe spotted cannot keep up with the gang then the gang disbands into the smaller goups based on the next highest skill levels. All this makes a hierarchy of ranks necessary. The ranks dictate what role you have. You get assigned Ranks by Ceo's or Executor's etc. You first have to qualify for the rank by having the necessary skills, then awarded the rank based on your achievements/clout. Say the highest ranking officer is killed. and they had the bonus to prevent their gang of 70 from suffering a damage penalty, and the next highest position has skills sufficient to have no loss of damage up to 60 ships. The gang takes a hit because they lost their leader and don't have the depth to maintain their efficiency. If you have a fleet that uses scan probes, and they locate the gang leader for the size of the gang and they warp to him and kill him, the main gang is suddenly disbanded into smaller gangs. If there isn't a skilled pilot to replace the pilot who died they could potententially be split many ways, making coordination a nightmare. Thus, the fleet that kills the leaders, and uses scouting an dtactics to cut the head off of the beast will win. It also introduces the possiblity of traitors in a blob. They give the location of a gang leader (group size) away and the enemy fleet can nerf their enemy quickly. Changes similar to this will introduce a lot to fleet combat instead of my number is bigger than your number, and we insta-poped more than your fleet insta-poped

Kelgen Thann SUBLIME L.L.C. Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2006.09.06 04:55:00 - [111] I would like to see a whoel set of leadership skills introduced into the game. These skills dictating how many people are allowed in a gang. each successive skill requiring level 5 in the previous. The first skill would be rank 1 and each level allows 1 extra person in a gang. at no skill you can have 2 in a gang. The second skill is a rank 2 skill and this allows an extra 3 people in the gang The third skill is rank 4 and permits an additional 5 people in the gang per level. The last skill is rank 8 and permits an additional 10 people in the gang per level. The main point of thise is to stop the 300 person gangs, and the 200 person gangs. It will limit a gang size for a single FC(or FC alt), there are work arounds with Teamspeak and the such, but it requires several Fleet commanders all coordinating and takes more skill. a Fleet commander with high leadership skills would be valuable as they could have close to 100 in a gang. I would also give Fleet command ships a bonus to this increasing the numbers in a gang by 20. This also gives charisma a purpose other than mission running. If the person withthe highest leadership skill gets killed, the head of the fleet has been cut off, and the next highest takes effect, and if necessary the fleet is split, the possible split can be arranged before hand, so a fleet can have a ranking system which is established before hand. To maximize fleet effectiveness it takes planning and coordination between leaders, and multiple gangs. This can be taken further, and as you have more and more ships in a gang the overall damage output of ships decreases. There can be a set of skills that allow for the effective coordiation of ships in a fleet and their firing ability. Say as you pass a certain level of say 20 ships you suffer a small penalty to total damage out-put because more and more ships in a gang affect communication and effectiveness. Skills are there to add discipline to a fleet. The discipline skills are leadership skills, and are a small series that restor most of the efficiency by raising the maximum number of pilots that can be in a gang without suffering the penalty. Rank 1 skill +2 ships per level Rank 3 skill +4 ships per level Rank 6 skill + 5 ships per level Rank 10 skill +10 ships per level Set the base at say 20 ships. This also adds value to the fleet commander, if he is killed and has high skills here the next commander may not be as effective, and the Fleet becomes less effective with the leaders death. Command ships can also increase the level by say 20 again. Small Gangs should also gain a bonus to damage to encourage small fleets and not blobs. Introduce a skill that raises damge out-put of all small turrets/launchers, medium turrets and launchers, and large ones. 3 skills Rank 5 leadership category. Each level increases damge out-put by 5% per level. Say the damage bonus completely dissapears after a gang goes greater than the size of 10 ships. command ships increase this level by 5 ships - 50% Currently 40 ship fleet is as easy to controll as a 100 person fleet. that is wrong. People can argue that mroe can go wrong but everything is the same. You make the same calls for primary follow the same gang warping strategies. tactics change for the situation but the tactices and leader abilities are just as strained in a 40 person gang as in a 100. that is speaking from any experience I've had in gangs of differing sizes, and talking to FCs I personally find blob wars pathetic and I didn't follow my old alliance in their move because those were the battles that occured. Fleet fighting should be tough. the larger the group the harder it should be. If an invading force is forced to operate in 4 smaller blobs insteaed of 1 large blob I like that idea and would support any changes that encourage it.
LeEtCaNaDiAn Minmatar Einherjar Rising Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.09.06 05:17:00 - [112] What about a ranged interdictor weapon that would take up a ton of CPU and PG (and capacitor), but has a range of about 200k and a radius of around 30k? It could act as a "Burst" version of the Warp Disrupter/Scrambler, putting like 10 points of scram onto anything in the bubble for a minute or two. That should give the tacklers/fast, close-ranged ships enough time to get to the target and start shooting.
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.09.06 09:40:00 - [113] Originally by: Cod Ball TBH. Its not only the game that needs changing its also fleet commander attitudes. Damn near all FC's I know ALL want to snipe or go at long range. That makes the whole thing less fun and boringly simple. Whenever i lead a fleet im allways making sure everyone in the gang has short range setups and we allways go in right ontop of the enemy because it makes the whole thing more do or die and more intense. Ive won many fleet battles by doing that just because short range setups at 5-10km against even bigger numbers but with long range setups is a good fight and usually a nice win. yep .. i think this gets close to the problem as it can get ... sniping has the advantage that you'll have less casualties and more flexibility in range ... closerange has the advantage higher damage potential and better tackling - more casualties on both sides ... conclusion: sniping is more efficient ___________________ -Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
Ol' Delsai Caldari Aeden	Posted - 2006.09.06 11:43:00 - [114] Originally by: Aegis Osiris The Proposal 1. Shockwave Effect: an exploding ship should impact objects nearby. While 'damage' is the obvious choice, it is too problematic and massively impacts close range ships. Instead, I suggest (as have others) a 'Shockwave Effect', with two parts. a) EM pulse: the explosion of a ship's powercore generates a pulse equivalent, in some ways, to an ECM burst with a 100% effectiveness within its area. Any ship within the blast instantly loses lock on any and all targets. No modules go offline until they run thru their natural activation cycle (ie. jammers, weapons, etc.; sensor and tracking boosters would remain active). b) Kinetic pulse: the detonation of the ship's powercore also throws out debris, from fast moving particles to chunks of hull. While it does no damage (could do minimal, unimportant really), it DOES nudge your ship. Not as much as a bump, but enough to throw off your alignment by a small degree. Example, your course changes to within a 15 degree cone of your present course. Actually, I really love these two ideas. They are simple yet very effective. Moreover, they seem not too hard to implement and are clearly "scientific". They can lead to great strategies and make the fleet battles a lot more interesting. Finally, they are hardly exploitable and do not introduce some "overpowered" new weapon. Hope we'll see something like this pretty soon ...
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.09.06 12:02:00 - [115] Edited by: Ishquar Teh''Sainte on 06/09/2006 12:03:14 problem is see with this whole AoE stuff - it makes it easier to defend a system as it allready is ... let's assume the following ... the AoE effect has a range of 10k fleet A camps the incoming gate of a system where for example a POS siege is running - dictor at the gate ... the snipers spread out all around the gate (covering the half of the sphere around the gate to their warpout spot) making the AoE effect useless fleet B jumps in - if it's laggy for both sides ... well ... it depends all on luck if you survive or not (just like now - attackers don't really know what's happening, campers won't be able to target/activate their guns on the ships ... but the campers can inflict more damage due to the AoE effect - remember if your gang is big enough it's likely that there are other ships 10k close to you) - if it's not laggy (or only for those who jump in) - then the AoE becomes a real killer .. ships in the dictor bubble at the gate get popped, cause damage/disadvantages to their neighbouring ships, which get easier popped due to this and so on .. while the campers might lose only the firepower of one ship when it gets popped, the attackers will loose more of their firepower (or atleast of their tankingability) so those who are able to set-up a gatecamp where all ships are spread out has the advantage .. but setting up such a camp takes time ... but time is no problem when it comes to alliance warfare. so the whole stuff ends in the question "who can earlier blob after downtime to lockdown a system in a way that the AoE effect doesn't matter" ___________________ -Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
Korovyov Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2006.09.06 12:15:00 - [116] I can't be arsed to find the post, but Tux states in response to all the "AoE!!!" stuff that it was just a rant. His real intention is to nerf sniping. What that means specifically, I don't know. Maybe battleships will have a max range of 10km, cruisers 8km, and frigates 6km. In that case, I hope they add a serraded knife module. ***
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.06 12:20:00 - [117] Originally by: Ol' Delsai Originally by: Aegis Osiris The Proposal 1. Shockwave Effect: an exploding ship should impact objects nearby. While 'damage' is the obvious choice, it is too problematic and massively impacts close range ships. Instead, I suggest (as have others) a 'Shockwave Effect', with two parts. a) EM pulse: the explosion of a ship's powercore generates a pulse equivalent, in some ways, to an ECM burst with a 100% effectiveness within its area. Any ship within the blast instantly loses lock on any and all targets. No modules go offline until they run thru their natural activation cycle (ie. jammers, weapons, etc.; sensor and tracking boosters would remain active). b) Kinetic pulse: the detonation of the ship's powercore also throws out debris, from fast moving particles to chunks of hull. While it does no damage (could do minimal, unimportant really), it DOES nudge your ship. Not as much as a bump, but enough to throw off your alignment by a small degree. Example, your course changes to within a 15 degree cone of your present course. Actually, I really love these two ideas. They are simple yet very effective. Moreover, they seem not too hard to implement and are clearly "scientific". They can lead to great strategies and make the fleet battles a lot more interesting. Finally, they are hardly exploitable and do not introduce some "overpowered" new weapon. Hope we'll see something like this pretty soon ... self destruct a bare ship in the middle of the enemy fleet ? you get all the benefit for no loss and then you have a free playground till they lock again ... Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.